Janice R. Andrews
In a surprising turn of events, a federal judge has lifted the temporary freeze on President Trump’s controversial ‘buyout’ offer to federal workers, allowing the administration to proceed with its plan to shrink the federal workforce. The decision, made by Massachusetts District Judge George O’Toole on Wednesday, marks a significant victory for the Trump administration as it seeks to cut costs and streamline government operations.
The ruling comes after the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other unions sued to halt the February 6 deadline for federal workers to accept the ‘deferred resignation’ offer. The unions argued that the plan was unlawful and threatened the job security of hundreds of thousands of federal employees. However, Judge O’Toole, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the unions lacked standing to challenge the directive, as they were not directly impacted by it.
The buyout offer, presented by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), gave federal workers the option to resign from their positions while remaining on the payroll with full benefits until September 30. Those who accepted the offer would also be exempt from returning to in-person work five days a week, a requirement recently reinstated for most federal employees. Workers were instructed to send an email with the word “Resign” in the subject line to accept the deal.
As of last Friday, more than 65,000 federal workers had accepted the offer, despite the temporary court-ordered pause. However, this figure represents just over 3% of the federal workforce, falling short of the 5-10% acceptance rate estimated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk, aims to save $2 trillion in federal spending, with the buyout program projected to save $100 billion annually.
The AFGE and other critics have raised concerns about the validity and fairness of the offer. Union president Everett Kelley accused the administration of misleading federal employees, calling the plan “unfunded, unlawful, and without guarantees.” He argued that the offer was a thinly veiled threat to force workers to resign or risk losing their jobs without compensation in the future.
Democratic lawmakers and federal employees have also expressed skepticism about the offer. Many workers reported receiving a series of follow-up emails pressuring them to accept the deal, while others have vowed to “hold the line” and remain in their positions as long as possible. Some employees have even used the offer as a rallying cry to resist what they see as an attempt to replace career public servants with partisan loyalists.
Despite the controversy, the judge’s decision allows the administration to move forward with its plan. However, the relatively low acceptance rate so far suggests that the effort to significantly reduce the federal workforce may face challenges. As the September 30 deadline approaches, the fate of thousands of federal workers—and the future of government efficiency initiatives—remains uncertain.
This ruling underscores the ongoing tension between the Trump administration’s cost-cutting measures and the concerns of federal employees and their advocates. With the buyout offer now back on the table, the coming months will be critical in determining the long-term impact of this unprecedented policy.
